Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley
S.D. Florida · Estados Unidos, 4 de febrero de 2026 · Fabricación. Ficha verificada del Equipo Editorial.
Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.
El 4 de febrero de 2026, S.D. Florida (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.
Qué se alucinó
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs cited In re: Marriage of Smith, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1018 (2011), which the court identified as a non-existent authority as presented.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs attributed the quotation "Dismissal based on a legal defense does not equate to frivolity." to Parekh; court found Parekh contains no such language.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs attributed a quotation about use of confidential information to In re Shell Oil Refinery; court found the quoted material is not in that case.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs cited Lopez v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 14-cv-2524, 2016 WL 4131149 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), which the court found does not exist as cited.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs cited Harris v. City of Auburn, 2018 WL 3329858 (M.D. Ala. July 6, 2018), which the court determined was a mis-citation (the cited decision did not exist as presented).
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs cited Avery v. Ward, 2014 WL 4748452, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2014), which the court found does not exist as cited.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiffs quoted language attributed to Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) that does not appear in that opinion; court found the quotation fabricated/misattributed.
- Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Plaintiffs claimed the magistrate's R&R contained language calling them 'serial litigants' and accusing them of filing to 'harass' and being 'retaliatory'; the court found those characterizations do not appear in the R&R.
Desenlace
Show Cause Order; Order to certify review of citations. Sanción profesional: No.
Ficha del caso
| Caso | Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley |
| Jurisdicción | S.D. Florida |
| País | Estados Unidos |
| Fecha | 4 de febrero de 2026 |
| Quién usó IA | Pro Se Litigant |
| Herramienta | Implied |
| Área del derecho | contract |
Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1456/Button_v._Mccawley_USA_4_February_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.
¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.